Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 6

One of the paragraphs in "Identity"
Hi all and happy new year

To avoid conflict and misunderstandings, I would like to highlight the following paragraph, recently added to by user "Macedonian".

There was an "evolving view" of the Macedonians as seen by the Greek poleis.[129] By and large, the Macedonians were not seen as "true Hellenes" until after the death of Alexander the Great, and throughout the Classical era, most Greeks distinguished themselves from Macedonians.[130][131] The gulf between Macedonians and Greeks was only bridged when both parties found themselves threatened by a new, western "barbarian" – Rome.[131] As Danforth summarizes: "It is with the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that the Macedonians came to be regarded as 'northern Greeks'. This is precisely the period during which ancient authors, such as Polybius and Strabo, did refer to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks."[126] The reasons for such an evolution remain subject to debate: that is, whether the repeated denial of Macedonian Hellenicity during the Classical era represented a true ethnic distinction between Macedonians and southern Greeks,[132] a cultural "otherness" between the archaic institutions of the Macedonians and those of the poleis, and/or political animosity between ideologically oppositional regimens.[133] Indeed, much of the ambiguity about the Macedonians' ethnic identity, and sharp contrast between "Macedonians" and "Greeks" comes from a small group of patriotic Athenian orators and historians, like Demosthenes and Aeschines.[134] Eugene N. Borza, states that Demosthenes designed an oratory corpus against the Macedonians to sway public opinion and thereby to formulate public policy.[135] As a point of comparison, Engels suggests the Greekness of the Epirotes, who led a similarly 'archaic' life as the Macedonians, never drew a sharp discussion as with the Macedonians, perhaps because the Epirotes, unlike the Macedonians, never attempted to achieve hegemony over all of Greece.[134] Additionally, Ian Worthington uses the case of Epirus to argue that Greek writers before the Hellenistic period applied the term 'barbarian' to the Macedonians referring to their way of life and their institutions, which were those of the ethne and not of the city-state.[136] Whatever the case, the degree of antipathy between Macedonians and southern Greeks was of different quality than that seen amongst other Greek states with a long-term history of mutual animosity (e.g. Sparta and Athens).[137]


 * He added a quote by Borza about Demosthenes (Eugene N. Borza, states that Demosthenes designed an oratory corpus against the Macedonians to sway public opinion and thereby to formulate public policy). A valid addition, one which I think needs to be placed further down, in the relevant section on Demosthenes' perspective, for it is now extending an already long paragraph


 * I have expressed reservations about the latter sentences on Epirotes. For whilst, Engles is a worthy source it appears historically inconsistent; and is merely opening up some 'touchy' issues which deserve an article of their own and, again, extends the paragraph. And for the sake of acuracy, if it is kept, one is thus compelled to add material from other scholars to the effect of: Irrespective of Engels' view, Malkin points out that contemporary Greeks did not actually see the Epirotes as "Greeks", as late as Strabo [VII, 7; fr 9] [The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. I Malkin. University of California Press. 1998. Pg 136 "It is clear that most of the Epirote "tribes" were not regarded as Greek"]. Further, Both Hall and Crossland point out "the fact that the inscriptions of a koinon of the Molossian tribes was written in Greek c. 370 BC does not prove that Greek was their native language" [Ancient Perspective on Greek Ethnicity.., 2001, Pg 175]]. On this front, Toynbee suggests that Epirotes were originally Illyrian speaking, although there also existed a Greek substratum since the Bronze Age, and the Epirotes were gradually Hellenized, or perhaps re-Hellenized [Some Problems of Greek History'' A J Toynbee. Pg 104-112].


 * to further shorten that paragraph, certain things can be put at the end, as a concluding paragraph. In fact, many of the things in that paragraph seem to have been added in for the sake of it without a realization that they have all already been mentioned, and as a result it has ballooned. IT can be trimmed significantly, and important sentences placed into relevant sections which already exist. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Engels is a perfectly reliable source (not "historically inconsistent" at all), and he specifically mentions the Epirotes in a section discussing the identity of the Macedonians. I had added that one sentence months ago, and stand by it 100%. I do not think it should be removed under the guise of "trimming" the paragraph, that seems highly disingenuous. Moreover, Engels doesn't actually say that Epirotes were Hellenes, merely that their Hellenicity was not the subject of as sharp a debate as that of the Macedonians. You are reading way more into that sentence than it actually says (interesting, isn't it?). Yet you added 4-5 sentence about how scholar X and scholar Y and also scholar Z do not think the Epirotes weren't Hellenes. No way.  I certainly do not feel "compelled" to add a whole bunch of stuff completely irrelevant to the ancient Macedonians, e.g. that the now-dated Toynbee thinks that the Epirotes were "Illyrian-speaking".  Also, judging from your edit summary, it seems that you are more intent on getting back at User:Macedonian rather than anything else. If you feel that Macedonian's addition about Demosthenes is wrongly placed, feel free to move it, but please don't add a bunch of off-topic material to the article, then claim you are trying to shorten the paragraph. Athenean (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, although please attempt to withhold your usual opinions about what my personal motives might be. But your points about the article itself are valid enough. Would it be acceptable if I try to distribute (disperse) the contents of the paragraph into the remaining body of a more condensed section ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine the way it is now. I don't see a need to disperse or condense. Athenean (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, implied threats of the kind "or the evidence will keep coming" are completely unacceptable. If there is relevant "evidence", then it should be added to the article regardless of what User:Macedonian does. Otherwise, it's a cynical use of the "evidence" to try to alter the behavior of another user, essentially saying, "back off, or I will add even more things that you won't like". You are on very thin ice regarding this article, don't push it. Athenean (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bizarre to interpret supplying further evidence as a "threat" (to what ? ). I was merely stating that if one insists on diverting/ extending the discussion to Epirotes, then there exists a whole lot extra material to add. As for the article, I recall that you constantly state that its too long. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My proposal entails a slight modification of set out, breaking the monotony of voluminous text, joining/ summarizing the large paragraph above into a conclusion. Nothing "new" added. just take a look

Nature of Sources
Most ancient sources on the Macedonians come from outside of Macedonia. According to Eugene N. Borza, most of these sources are either ill-informed, hostile, or both, making the Macedonians one of the "silent" peoples of the ancient Mediterranean. Moreover, most ancient sources tend to focus on the deeds of Macedonian kings in connection with political and military events such as the Peloponnesian War, and evidence on the ethnic identity of Macedonians of lower social status is highly fragmentary and unsatisfactory from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period. Much of the later literary evidence comes from a small group of patriotic Athenian orators and historians, like Demosthenes and Aeschines.

Ancient sources on the Argeads
The identity of the Argeads is generally examined separately from the Macedonian ethnos as a whole. The earliest version of the Temenid foundation myth was circulated by Alexander I, via Herodotus, during his apparent appearance at the Olympic Games. Despite protests from some competitors, the Hellanodikai ("Judges of the Greeks") accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy, as did Herodotus himself, and later Thucydides. In accepting his Greek credentials, the judges were either moved by the evidence itself, or did so out of political considerations - as reward for services to Hellas. The historicity of Alexander I’s participation in the Olympics has been doubted by some scholars (Alexander’s name does not appear in any list of Olympic victors), who see the story as a piece of propaganda engineered by the Argeads and spread by Herodotus. Moreover, that there were protests from other competitors suggests that the supposed Argive genealogy of the Argeads "was far from mainstream knowledge"; and the appellation "Philhelene" was "surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek". Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".

The emphasis on the Heraklean ancestry of the Argeads served to heroicize the royal family and to provide a sacred genealogy which established a "divine right to rule" over their subjects. The Macedonian royal family, like those of Epirus, emphasized "blood and kinship in order to construct for themselves a heroic genealogy that sometimes also functioned as a Hellenic genealogy."

Although most contemporary Greek writers accepted the Argeads as Greek, they nevertheless expressed an air of ambiguity about them (specifically their monarchic institutions and their background of Persian alliance) often portraying them as a potential "barbarian" threat to Greece. For example, the late 5th century sophist, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, objected "we Greeks are enslaved to the barbarian Archelaus" (Fragment 2). The issue of Macedonian Hellenicity, and that of their royal house, was particularly pertinent in the 4th century BCE, around the politics of invading Persia. Demosthenes viewed Macedonia's monarchy to be incongruous with an Athenian-led Pan-Hellenic alliance. He thus castigated Philip II for being "neither Greek nor a remote relative of the Greeks, nor even a respectable barbarian, but one of those cursed Macedonians..." This was obvious political slander, but "the orator clearly could not do this, if his audience was likely to regard his claim as nonsense: it could not be said of a Theban, or even a Thessalian". On the other hand, Isocrates believed that only Macedonia was capable of leading a war against Persia, thus felt compelled to uphold that Phillip was a "bona fide" Hellene by discussing his Argead and Heraclean heritage.

Ancient sources on the Macedonian people
With regard to how the Macedonian ethnos as a whole was regarded by the Greeks, the earliest reference comes from Hesiod's Catalogue of Women. The eponymous Makedon, and his brother Magnes, are made sons of Zeus and Thyia, daughter of Deucalion. Descent form Zeus did not make one a Greek, but having been fathered by Hellen himself did. Thus, although Engels interpreted that Hesiod counted the Macedonians as Greeks, Hall stipulates that "according to strict genealogical logic, [this] excludes the population that bears [Macedon’s] name from the ranks of the Hellenes". Later writers also deny Macedon a Hellenic lineage: Apollodorus (3.8.1) makes him a son of Lycaon, son of earth-born Pelasgus, whilst Pseudo–Scymnos (6.22) makes him born directly from the earth. Hellanicus, on the other hand, produced a genealogy which made Makedon the son of Aeolus, thus implying that the Macedonians were Greeks, mostly related to the Aeolians.

These early writers and their formulation of genealogical relationships demonstrate that, prior to the 5th century, Greekness was defined on an ethnic basis and legitimized by tracing descent from eponymous Hellen. Subsequently, cultural considerations assumed greater importance.

Thucydides and Herodotus regarded the Macedonians either as northern Greeks, barbarians, or an intermediate group between "pure" Greeks and barbarians. In his Histories, Herodotus recalls a reliable tradition whereby the Dorians were formed by a fusion of Macedonian and other Greek tribes, suggesting that Macedonians were Greeks. In other sections of his work, however, Herodotus implies that the Macedonians are not Greek: in 5.20.4, he calls King Amyntas an aner Hellen Makedon hyparchos, or "a Greek who ruled over Macedonians", and in 7.130.3 where Herodotus tells that the Thessalians were the "first of the Greeks" to submit to Xerxes.

Thucydides did not perceive Greeks and barbarians as mutually exclusive categories, rather opposite poles on a linear spectrum. He placed the Macedonians on his cultural continuum closer to barbarians than Hellenes, or perhaps an intermediate category between Greeks and non–Greeks. For example, he distinguishes between three groups fighting in the Peloponnesian War: The Greeks (including Peloponnesians), the barbarian Illyrians, and the Macedonians. In recounting Brasidas's expedition to Lyncus, he juxtaposes the Macedonian cavalry with "the rest of the huge barbarian throng". Whilst this calls them barbarians by association, more explicit is his recounting of Brasidas's speech where he tells his Peloponnesian troops to dispel fear of fighting against "barbarians: because they had already fought against Macedonians".

Ancient geographers differed in their views on the size of Macedonia and on the ethnicity of the Macedonians. While most ancient geographers did not include the core territories of the Macedonian kingdom in their definition of Greece, the reasons are unknown. For example, Strabo says that while "Macedonia is of course part of Greece, yet now, since I am following the nature and shape of the places geographically, I have chosen to classify it apart from the rest of Greece". While he speaks of the "Macedonians and the other Greeks", Pausanias did not include Macedonia in Hellas as indicated in Book 10 of his Description of Greece.

As noted above, Isocrates defended Philip's Greek origins, but was not inclined to think the same of his people: "He (Perdiccas I) left the Greek world alone completely, but he desired to hold the kingship in Macedonia; for he understood that Greeks are not accustomed to submit themselves to monarchy whereas others are incapable of living their lives without domination of this sort...for he alone of the Greeks deemed it fit to rule over an ethnically unrelated population." Nevertheless, Philip named the federation of Greek states he created with Macedon at its head (nowadays referred to as the League of Corinth) as simply "The Hellenes" (i.e. Greeks), and the Macedonians were moreover granted two seats in the exclusively Greek Great Amphictyonic League in 346 BC when the Phocians were expelled; although Badian sees it as a personal honor awarded to Phillip, and not to the Macedonian people as a whole.

With Philip's conquest of Greece, Greeks and Macedonians both enjoyed privileges at the royal court, and there was no social distinction amongst his court hetairoi, although Philip's armies were only ever led by Macedonians. The process of Greek and Macedonian syncretism culminated during the reign of Alexander the Great, and he even allowed Greeks to command his armies. However, there was also some persisting antagonism between Macedonians and Greeks lasting into Antgonid times. Some "Greeks" continued to push against their Macedonian overlords throughout the Hellenistic era. They rejoiced on the death of Phillip II; and they revolted against Alexander's Antigonid successors, which the Greeks called, revealingly, the Hellenic War. However, whilst Pan-Hellenic sloganeering was used by Greeks against Antigonid dominance, it was also used by Macedonians themselves to drum up popular support throughout Greece.

After the 3rd century BC, and especially in Roman times, the Macedonians were consistently regarded as Greeks. For example, Polybius has the Acarnanian Lyciscus tell the Spartans that they are "of the same tribe" as the Achaeans and the Macedonians. Livy, in his History of Rome, states that the Macedonians, Aetolians and Acarnanians were "all men of the same language". Similar opinions are shared also by Arrian and Strabo (7.7.1).

The Persians referred to both Greeks and Macedonians as Yauna ("Ionians", their term for "Greeks"), though they distinguished the "Yauna by the sea and across the sea" from the Yaunã Takabara or "Greeks with hats that look like shields", possibly referring to the Macedonian kausia hat. According to another interpretation, the Persians used such terms in a geographical rather than ethnic sense. That is, Yauna, and its various attributes, possibly referred to regions lying north and west of Asia Minor; and could have included Phrygians, Mysians, Aeolians, Thracians, and Paionians in addition to Greeks. In Hellenistic times, most Egyptians and Syrians included the Macedonians among the larger category of "Greeks" without hesitations, as the Persians had done earlier.

Modern discourse
Modern scholarly discourse has produced a variety of hypotheses as to how the Macedonians sat within the Greek world. Citing “hard evidence” such as material remains of Greek-style monuments, buildings, inscriptions and predominance of Greek personal names; one school of thought suggests that the Macedonians were “truly Greeks” who had retained a more archaic lifestyle viz-a-viz their southern cousins. This cultural discrepency was highlighted and exploited during political struggles of Athens and Macedonia in the 4th century. As a point of comparison, Engels suggests the Greekness of the Epirotes, who led a similarly 'archaic' life as the Macedonians, never drew a sharp discussion as with the Macedonians, perhaps because the Epirotes, unlike the Macedonians, never attempted to achieve hegemony over all of Greece.[134] This has been the predominant view point during the 20th century. As Worthington summarizes: "...not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable",

Another perspective interprets the literary evidence, and the evident archaeological-cultural differences between Old Macedonia and central-southern Greece, as clear evidence that the Macedonians were originally non-Greek tribes who underwent a process of Hellenization. "It is with the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that the Macedonians came to be regarded as 'northern Greeks'. This is precisely the period during which ancient authors, such as Polybius and Strabo, did refer to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks."

Others have suggested that the question of whether the Macedonians “really were Greeks” is a moot point. The greatest historical importance was that they were “Macedonians”. Hall and Malkin have both highlighted that the issue of Macedonian ethnicity had for the greater part of the 20th century been approached via outdated, essentialist perspectives. In particular, the nature of Macedonian language was deemed to be an appropriate marker of ethnicity; however such methodology had more to do with the vocabulary of modern concepts of nationalism and nation-state ethnicity than historical reality. Irrespective of how modern scholars attempt to reconstruct ancient, scarcely attested languages; "Hellenism" was a matter of culture, way of life and political organization. Moreover, ethnicity in the ancient world was an "extremely complex and fluid social construct" "constantly subject to negotiation and renegotiation in an ongoing political process." This explains why there was an "evolving view" of the Macedonians as seen by the Greek poleis.


 * I don't see why this is an improvement. The most significant difference I can tell is that you now got rid of the sentence about the Epirotes, which is what you had set out to do from the very beginning. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that was not my intention. We can keep the same very sentence. I just forgot about it. See nowSlovenski Volk (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, that's fine, but I need to think a bit more about your proposal, and it is getting late and I am tired. A few things that do jump out at me though. One is that I don't like how the sentence on the "small group of patriotic Athenian orators" was moved, it's meaning is completely changed. I would also keep the sentences "Most of the literary evidence tends to come from later sources focusing on the campaigns of Alexander the Great rather than on Macedonia itself, while most contemporary evidence on Philip tends to be Athenian and hostile.[128] For Macedonia before Philip, historians have to rely on archeological inscriptions and material remains, a few fragments from historians whose work is now lost, the occasional passing mention in Herodotus and Thucydides, and "universal histories" from the Roman era.[128]", I think they are highly relevant and I added them after painstaking research in the Companion. I also prefer the current concluding paragraph, I don't think "This explains why there was an evolving view..." is the right way to end the article, I think Hall's quote is the best way to do so. Anyway, your proposal certainly has its merits, and I'm sure we can hammer out a compromise, but like I said that may have to wait till tomorrow. Athenean (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what is the point for all that, Slovenski Volk. What I did was simply pointing out that, as with Engels, Ian Worthington uses the case of Epirus to argue that Greek writers before the Hellenistic period applied the term 'barbarian' to the Macedonians referring to their way of life and their institutions, which were those of the ethne and not of the city-state. And you came up with a whole thing on the Greekness of the Epirotes, way out of context! You are not helping the article, and you are leading me to think that this is nothing else but another case of your known behaviour towards me, considering your personal attack here and your commentary here. Perhaps you have something against Macedonians, judging by your addressing to me as "Macedonian" at the beginning of this section, as you did in your personal attack against me then... Macedonian (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My suggestion (essentially reformatting the section) has nothing to do with your addition, Macedonian. And I'm not sure why you've brought up something from a year ago. Nevertheless, judging by your personal page, I am not exactly far off the mark if I have in the past called you a nationalist (confusing and infusing, as you do, modern politics with ancient history without attempting to actually understand the 'real issures'). And unlike certain editors, I have added to this article representing "both sides" of the coin, however, if this seems slanted in a certain direction, then you should perhaps ask what other editors have done to alleviate this need. And if I may be so bold, the article is a far-cry better now than two years ago. It actually reads like a well balanced article than something from a forum site. Nevertheless, don't feel I have something personal against you Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Athenian, you know that I have always accomodated your suggestions, and will continue to do so. I would appreciate a similar gesture without the initial "no way !", "forget it!", etc. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are doing it again, Slovenski Volk... Info on my userpage is just to disambiguate. No rudeness or insulting whatsoever. Macedonian (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims of "specialist academic consensus"
There is nothing to suggest that this version is more representative of the current "specialist academic consensus" than the previous version, other the say-so of the user who performed the edit. The previous version cites many sources, rather than just one. Claims of representing the current academic consensus are major - they need to be backed by very solid sourcing, as opposed to a single cherry-picked paper. Athenean (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  there is absolutely nothing to suggest that SV's version is more representative of the "specialist consensus" than the previous version


 * actually, it clearly and simply does, from both the contemporary primary sources and modern, secondary  literature. I merely stated that they were variously seen as both, and you and i well know that that is true. I wasn't making any bold statements as to which position is actually correct, but agree with the observation that they were seen as both hellenes and barbarians, depending on who said it, when, and under what context. Do you disagree with this ? Im sure you know ancient sources perhaps better than anyone, Athenean


 * If you wish to have some sources:


 * Sansone (2011; Ancient Greek civilization) “Those Macedonians, however, who were not members of the royal family seem not to have qualified as Greeks.”


 * Pomeroy (Ancient Greece, 1999) “one fact is undisputed : in antiquity neither Macedonians nor Greeks considered the Macedonians to be Greek” Greeks viewed the Macedonians as barbarians like their Thracian and Illyrian neighbours” (373)


 * Butler (Of Swords and Strigils: Social Change in Ancient Macedon; 2008). Describes the Macedonians as a collection of “Balkan tribes” which acquired Greek traits in the 5th century.


 * Budin (the Ancient Greeks): “the Greeks had always thought of the Macedonians as northern Barbarians” (p 81)


 * Tritle (the Greek world in the fourth century) : The Macedonians were not considered Greek


 * Papazagolou (2000) “In general, the Macedonians were not considered barbarians, but still they differed from the Hellenes.”


 * Burstein (2008) "The marginalization of Macedonian history in Hellenistic Greek histories was accompanied by increased emphasis of the 'otherness' of the Macedonians and the sharpening of the line dividing them from Greeks


 * Engels (2010) “This chapter has supported the view that Hellenic and Macedonian ethnic identity or ethnicity should be regarded as extremely complex and fluid constructions which surely deserve further study”


 * Archibald (1998) “That the region of Macedonia proper was called Thrace into historic period might confirm the predominant cultural orientation and background of the emerging Macedonians”.


 * Hall (Contested Ethnicities) points out passim that contemporary Greeks, especially prior to 4th century, did not see Macedonians as peers.


 * Danforth (1995) “Macedonians were not regarded as Greeks. It is only with the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that the Macedonians came to be regarded as "northern Greeks"” (pg 168-9)


 * Badian (1982) the Macedonians “were regarded as clearly barbarian, despite the myths that had at times issued from the court and its Greek adherents”.(pg 42)


 * Borza (Before Alexander): entire book devoted to exploring the Hellenization of an initially non-Greek tribe.


 * Kristiansen (2010) The Macedonians were a frontier people, who ‘were heavily influenced by Greek civilization” (pg 79)


 * Furthermore, many of the references quoted supporting the Greekness of Macedonians rely on (i) outdated notions of ‘proto-Greek stock’ based on the alleged Greek nature of Macedonian, an issue which has been debated ad nauseum, and is controversial; and (ii) an outdated 'check-list' type discussion of ethnic criteria which virtually no current anthropologists any longer support. And even those references (which mostly date from the 1970s, thus are now almost half a decade old (!) ), still realized that “The Greeks looked upon them [Macedonians] as barbarians, that is not Greek” (Fine, 1983, p 607)


 * Thus it is not unreasonable to state, looking at the body of recent literature to include what I had written. "Variously called "Greek" or "barbarian"" by contemporary Greeks, this distinction was soft, permeable and secondary to prevailing political and cultural factors; they were a vital part of the ancient Greek world from the 6th century BCE"


 * Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this barrage of sources somehow supposed to impress me? I can just as easily come up with a barrage of my own (Worthington, Hammond, not to mention all the sources included in ref#1, and no, they are not "outdated").  You seem to fixate on the fact that the ancient Greeks did not consider the Macedonians to be Greeks.  But what really matters is what modern scholars think, not what the Greeks of old thought.  There is a world of a difference between a scholar saying "The ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks" and "the ancient Greeks did not consider the Macedonians to be Greeks".  "Generally considered an ancient Greek people" (which I remind you is your own wording) is perfectly aligned with the prevailing scholarly view.  True, there is a minority view, led by Borza and Badian, that chiefly relies on ancient sources rather than archeological evidence, and posits that the Macedonians were "Hellenized barbarians".  But as the Identity section makes clear, this is not the prevailing view (again something you wrote yourself).  Both views are given due weight in the Identity section, but to change the lede according to the way you are proposing gives undue weight to the "Hellenized barbarians" school of thought (by implying they weren't part of the Greek world before the 6th century BC).  I also do not want the lede to get into whole "Hellenes versus barbarians" thing, which as we both know is incredibly subtle and has also been discussed ad nauseam (e.g. Engels pointing out that according to Thucydides "Hellene" and "barbarian" were not mutually exclusive characterizations). The addition "Variously called "Greek" or "barbarian"" by contemporary Greeks, this distinction was soft, permeable and secondary to prevailing political and cultural factors" is beyond the scope of an article's lede: The lede of this article is not the place to discuss that the distinction between Hellenes and Barbarians was soft and permeable or whatever. The previous wording has been stable for a very long time now, and I don't think that the scholarly literature has changed so significantly since then that a rewrite is necessary. Athenean (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your point on keeping the lede simple I agree with.


 * The "barrage" was not intended to induce any kind of emotive responce from you, but to show the body of scholars who have interpreted, analyzed and commented on various aspects of Macedonian ethnicity. This is how historical data is meant to be represented - they have analyzed how Macedonians saw themselves and seen by others, and added with their own interpretations for it. It is clear that the Macedonians were not uniformly regarded as Hellenes. Whatever interpretation one makes, eg whether one tries to explain it away as Hammond does and then rationalize it that they really were Greek (based on a primitive assessment of archaeological facts, eg based on a single Argolid-type bronze tripod serving as "proof" of their Argive mythology, prima facie interpretations of mythologies, and unproven and outdated ideas of a "proto-Greek homeland" in Epirus and western Macedonia; but somehow remained "frozen in time" as if they were retarded for a millenium); or whether they take a line like Borza - who you have criticized for that chiefly relies on ancient sources rather than archeological evidence. No offense, I'd like to ask you; have you even read his book Before Alexander ?? In fact, have you read much archaeological literature about anything ? Coz if you need, I'd be happy to place here another "Barrage", this time of the archaeological findings from Vergina and the rest of northern GReece from the archaic period.


 * The primary sources and secondary interpretations are self-evident. And this is what ethnicity is - how members of a group identify with each other and others . The Hellenes did not identify with the Macedonians, nor vice versa; at least not most of the time in the early years. Whatever the reason might be due (as elaborated in the identity section). This is the definition of ethnicity and the corpus of credible, specialist literature listed above supports this and subsribes to it in their dealing with the matter. They have not try to argue that the ancient southern Greeks were somehow wrong to see the Macedonians as non-Greek , have they ? They merely state - the Macedonians were not regarded as Greek, period.


 * Given that there is more than reasonable amount of literature in support of my contention, I reiterate we use a generic, neutral term like "Ancient tribe from NE part of Greek peninsula), just like in any other article where there is significant enough contention as to the exact affinities of a group (Eg the Cimbri which states "The Cimbri were a tribe from Northern Europe"  The excuse that this is how it has been isn;t particularly pertinent, articles need improving all the time, and it is a bit difficult when some editors militantly guard against any change unless they give "approval", as if you OWN this article. I am quite sure that is not how Wikipedia quite works. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your source barrage is nothing more than a series of snippets quoted out of context, and proves nothing. That this represents the scholarly consensus is just your own subjective interpretation of the literature. And now it's "The Macedonians were not regarded as Greek, period."??? At least now we can stop pretending.  There are plenty of ancient sources (e.g. Hesiod, Hellanicus), that do regard the Macedonians as Greeks, and you know this.  You also know that Thucydides and Herodotus, our two main sources, are ambivalent, and that "Barbarian" and "Hellene" are not mutually exclusive categories.  You also know that most of the "the Macedonians are Barbarians"-type quotes come from a small group of ultra-patriotic Athenian orators, and is mostly political propaganda.  Your blanket statement completely ignores all the important scholars that oppose your view (and they are many), as well as all the important archeological evidence to the contrary (and no I'm not talking about a "single Argolid-type bronze tripod", but things like the Pella katadesmos, which you conveniently ignore).  The "Hellenized non-Greeks" view is a minority view, like it or not.  Any and all evidence against this view is summarily dismissed by you with a wave of the hand as "primitive", "outdated", etc...I cannot take this seriously.  I once again remind you that the current wording is your own, so I wonder what has changed since then.  And knock it off with the not-so-subtly-veiled ad hominems already. Athenean (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I don't know if you noticed, but the opening sentence of the article exactly describes the Macedonians as "a tribe from the Northeastern part of the Greek peninsula". So are we cool, or what? Athenean (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is another case of SV and Future Perfect working against the spirit of wikipedia to push their minority views. It's very sad. The article employs more then enough cherry picked sources in various attempts to discredit the consensus in academia that the ancient macedonians were a greek people. The differences between all greek city states / tribes were more then trivial and they all quarreled with each other. However, their shared language and religious beliefs united them into a pan-greek ethnos.

Why don't we see as much effort to discredit other ancient greek groups? Its politically incorrect for me to say, but the answer is that they aren't bordered with a modern nation who needs to invent a history for themselves. SV/FP are from the modern RoM, and pushing nationalist views.

It's sad. Very sad.

99.231.213.130 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your concern, whilst deluded, is touching, anonyomous. Now, apart from that rubbish, do actually have anything you can academically refute with what I have said? I suspect not


 * Athenean, these are not snippets lest you want me to quote entire chapters ad nauseum. And why do you have to misquote what I am saying ? There is no need for that. What I have stated is the evidence is clear that Macedonians were not unequivocally considered to be Greek, and at times, actively denied such an identity for most of the earlier part of their history. This is not only evident from ancient sources, but by modern analysis also.


 * I am aware that a large corpus of literature still considers them to be Greek in some shape or form, however, a significant/ non-Fringe corpus question the methodology of such authors, and some even leave it at the point that they were not, initially. It is not my "opinion" of recent scholarly trends, but simple fact based on the corpus of literature in recent decade or more is that ethnicity / identity was subjective and based on the very political and social contexts which you use to sweep under the carpet that your ancient predecessors did not really think of the Macedonians as Greek, nor, likely, the macedonians themselves.


 * So again, I am not suggesting that my view is the correct view, am I? I am not stating the current view is inccorrect (although I question some of therefore methods previously used in the corpus of 1970s literature you qzuote). All that i am stating is that, given the quality and volume of excellent level specialist literature available at us, and the relative ease (qualitatively & quantitatively) with which we can institute change, the article can be improved beyond the WESALish words of "generally considered" to something more specific, academic and up-to-date.


 * and the current wording was an interim measure because you summarily dismiss any change to the lede which does not wholeheartedly and 100% does not represent a "Hellene" perspective; using words like 'na ha' "no way" and "forget about it" anytime I have attempted to suggest change. Sounds like WP:OWN, and denial of a body of work which within the context of recent time period, can even be considered a majority view point. SO are you willing to compromise or do we need to present all the evidence at an ArbCom ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * as a parting thought (for now); let consider this; linguistic and cultural boundaries are not always coterminous, let alone with self-processed ethnic boundaries


 * so even if Macedonians spoke some form of Greek and had a largely Hellenic culture, this does not automoatically mean they were "Greeks" or "Hellenes". Yes, Greeks fought each other, and did not always like each other, but you canno continually resort to the "athenea" arguement, because Macedoians were denied Hellenic status even before they were any sort of real power and threat to Athens.


 * but, we actually do not know if they spoke Greek for sure, and the Pella kandesmos deos not prove what language the Macedonians spoke, as Hall, Blazek and Woodward illustrate. All we do know is that Greeks could not udnerstand Macedonians and required translators. Now correct me if I am wrong, other Greeks laughed at each others accents, but never required translators ,did they ?
 * culturally, as Worthington wonderfully highlights the abundance of Greek culture in Macedonian, he at the same time remains clueless & ignorant of the most important, formative period of prior the 6th century, where there is vurtually nothing "Greek" in Macedonia ("barrage" of archaeological literature pending). All his observations date from the 4th century, rather late, and by then, most of the Mediterranean could be considered "Greek' by such logic. Most noteworthy of all is that what brought the influence of Greek cultural elements in the region was the arrival of the Persians and the heavily Ionic influenced cultural forms they brought with them . Interesting what one learns when they actually read good quality stuff Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The arrogance of labeling someone like Ian Worthington "clueless" and "ignorant" is simply breathtaking and speaks volumes. I mean, if even Worthington is clueless and ignorant according to you, then whom I am to debate this issue with you? Presumably he knows of what you speak, but doesn't interpret it the same way.  Of course, if one starts with the preconceived notion that the "Macedonians were not Greeks" (whatever that means, see below), and dismisses all the sources to the contrary as "primitive", "ignorant", and "clueless", then yes, one ends up convincing oneself of the preconceived notion they started with. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet again you misquote me; so it is you who appears to cherry -picking. I did not say Worthington is clueless, but I said Worthington wonderfully highlights the abundance of Greek culture in Macedonian, he at the same time remains clueless & ignorant of the most important, formative period of prior the 6th century. I retract my strong words, but the observations about his analysis stand, it is a fact - he simply does not even mention the scenario prior to the 5th / 4th century, and seems unaware about local, indigenous cultural features. Other authors who are actual archaeologists, or have more than a superficial knowledge of it, confirm my above data.


 * No I am not misquoting you, claiming that someone like Ian Worthington is " clueless & ignorant of the most important, formative period of prior the 6th century" is impossible to take seriously. It would be a different matter if you could provide high-caliber sources that critiqued Worthington's work, but I doubt you will be able to do that. I don't know where you get the impression that you are better-read that someone like Ian worthington, but I suggest you drop this line of argumentation, it is not going to work. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But what does it mean, that the "Macedonians weren't Greeks"? That they weren't perceived as such by their neighbors or by themselves?  There are plenty of ancient Greek sources (eliminating those ultra-patriotic Athenians) that did consider them Greeks.  As for the Macedonians themselves, we will never know what the average Macedonian in the street thought, but it is quite clear their elites, going all the way back to Alexander I, were quite eager, if not desperate, to be considered Greeks, going at great lengths to do so.  I don't know of any Thracian and Illyrians kings that did so. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * correct about Alexander, but you have to consider the political motiviations behind this, as already discussed in the body, whilst I do not doubt there was some genuine feeling of loyalty. However, you also have to consider that, as Isocrates describes, Alexander;s pleading that he was a Hellene meant that he was "civilized", "cultured" and a true noble; and not some barbarian princeling. And again, you keep incorrectly stating that I am pushing for the point that "Macedonians were not Greeks". I am not. I am statng that they were not unanimously, unambiguously seen as Greek; certainly not by the larger corpus of scholars and geographers prior to the 5th century. See Halls wonderful summary, and as Danforth has neatly summarized for us - the Greeks only saw really the Macedonians as "Greeks" at the beginnings of Roman conquest (!) 3rd century ; so not some obscure , dark period


 * What larger corpus of scholars and geographers prior to the 5th century? There are no scholars and geographers prior to the 5th century.  Our earliest source is Herodotus (mid-5th century), before that there are only mythographers like Hesiod.  So there is a period, largely coinciding with the period of political animosity between Macedon and Athens, where the Macedonians were not unanimously, unambiguously seen as Greek by some (again, mostly Athenian orators) of their contemporaries.  You claim that there are political motivations behind Alexander I's claim of Hellenic lineage, but there is no "political motivation" behind the denial of the Macedonian's Hellenicity?  For most of their recorded history, the Macedonians were seen as Greek, and much earlier than the Roman conquest.  As for Danforth, he is not a professor of ancient history, speaking of a hierarchy of sources, I'll take Worthington over him any time. A related question, one that is not even mentioned in the article: When is the last mention of the Macedonians as a distinct group?  At what point did this distinct "Macedonian" cease to exist? Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your claim that there is "nothing Greek" in Macedonia before the 6th century BC, first this is not true, second, even if we assume it's true, that does not really mean anything. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Go back far enough, there is "nothing Greek" anywhere.  Fact is, we know next to nothing before the 6th century BC, because there are no sources from that far back.  For all we know, there was no such thing as "Macedonians" back then.  The period that really matters is from the 5th century BC onwards, when they first enter the historical record through Herodotus. And as you yourself say in your proposed addition, they were an essential part of the Greek world at the time.  So then, they were an essential part of the Greek world from the time they appear in the historical record, i.e. there is no conflict with the current wording.  Regarding your claim that the ancient sources do not unequivocally consider them Greek, while that may be true, it is also true that a very large number of ancient sources do unequivocally consider them Greeks, but you ignore/dismiss those too. Your dismissal of the PCT and the many, many sources that classify Macedonian as a Greek dialect (and no, they are not outdated, not "primitive", not "clueless") is pure sophistry. Though there is no consensus in the academic community on the language, it is quite clear the majority of sources consider it a Greek dialect or at least a closely related sibling language (depending on how one defines a dialect).  Whatis outdated are old Thracian or Illyrian hypotheses.  The fact that they needed interpreters doesn't mean anything.  Sicilian is not mutually intelligible with Standard Italian, but that does not mean the Sicilians are not Italians. Your argument that most of the Mediterranean world "can be considered Greek" by the 4th century BC is also completely incorrect.  Alexander hadn't even created his empire for most of the 4th century BC. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, there is now actually an abundance of archaeological data from pre-6th century. So the "absence of evidence...' arguement is weak. Ofcourse there is some Greek material, however, by and large this is a small minority, and the large corpus of finds (pottery, jewellery, burials styles, etc) have little to do with anything further south, whether Athenean, Euboean, Crointhian, or Argolid (acknowledging that the "Greek" style itself was diverse). I would have thought you'd have by now actually read the plethora of sources I provided in the body (I did this so we can all learn, not just so I can "Prove" a certain standpoint - and many of these works are by Greek archaeologists)


 * Even if Macedonian was related to Greek, it does not mean it was "Greek", much less they were considered to be Greek. Eg Hungarian is close to Finnic, but Hungarians are not Finns, or vice versa .And again you're misquoting me, where have I said that Macedonians were Thracian, or Illyrian ? The sources never state that Macedonians are Thracians, or Illyrains. Don;t confuse material similarities with identity (as you tend to do). And the PCT is a lingua sacra. It does not prove that an inscription from a mystical/ magical /funerary context is representative of the spoken verbacular language, or langauges, of the Macedonians.
 * No scholars are claiming that Macedonian and the other Greek dialects are as related to each other as Finnish and Hungarian, which are thousands of miles apart - that is hughly disingenuous on your part. To the extent that scholars consider Macedonian a separate language (and the most commonly held view is that they consider it a Greek dialect), they consider it a closely related language, like Latin and Oscan or Umbrian, nothing like Finnish and Hungarian.  The bit about the PCT being a lingua sacra is sophistry, when the Macedonians wanted to sound educated they used Attic, not some hitherto undiscovered NW Greek dialect.  There are far too many scholars that consider the PCT as evidence of that the Macedonians spoke Greek for you to dismiss it like that. I am not confusing material similarities with identity, you are (your post above about how the lack of Greek findings in Macedonia somehow implies that they were not Greek).  Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For me, the most salient point is made by Engels, the one regarding the Epirotes and how their Hellenicity was never called into question because thy never tried to assume hegemony over Greece. Similarly, no one disputes that the Thessalians were Hellenes.  And no one had more in common with the Macedonians than the Thessalians.  Are we to believe that the people who lived just on the other side of Mount Olympus from the Thessalians were totally alien?  That Macedonian culture contains many non-Greek elements is explained by their absorption of non-Greek peoples to the north (Bottiaeans, Mygdonians, Bryges, so on...), which is already mentioned in the lede.  So if you want to say that they were a heterogeneous people, that is already amply covered.  These non-Greek peoples were indeed Hellenized, and it is difficult to see how that could have been done so thoroughly, unless their original conquerors were Hellenic.  Thracians and Illyrians were also Hellenized in later centuries, but never to the extent of those people the Macedonians absorbed in their early expansion. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, fact is, the Epirotes were seen as barbarians, for even longer than the Macedonians. This is just basic historical fact which is not even worth debating. I agree about the Thessalians, and I am well read in hatsopolous; works in Institutions. These must have something to do with the Hegemony of Thessaly during the late Archaic period and its influences on surrounding regions. But the bizarre thing is, in the early iron age and Mycenean period before that, there really is a 'border' in northern Thessaly. Typical "Mycenean" finds occur almost in full in Thessaly, and scantily just up the road in macedonia. Yes, there are a few Mycenean type pots and occcasional sword, but these are late and in definite minority. But again, I am not saying the Macedonians were Thracian, or Illyrian, or even mixed. Yes they had a diverse arsenal of cultural influences at their disposal, but their identity was nothign other than Macedonian, later becoming accepted as "Hellenes" also


 * So now we are going back to the Mycenean period? Why not the Neolithic?  I mean, there are no parallels to the sites of Sesklo and Dimini in Macedonia, are there?  The Mycenean period is irrelevant here.  What matters is that during the historical period, it was with the Thessalians that the Macedonians had the most in common with, not anyone else. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as compromise, the way I see it, the current wording is a compromise. If I could have my way, the lede would read somewhat differently.  But, I have made what I believed was a stable compromise on the issue.  I wonder, if I agree to your changes (hypothetically speaking), you won't want another "compromise" a few months from now?  And please don't threaten me with "an ArbCom", you don't know what that means or what it's for (otherwise you wouldn't be saying it). Athenean (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not a threat; but given the impasse presented by your "no way" responces, it seems as the only alternative. So again, my view is not a fringer, or a minority, but a very sizeble, even majority of recent, specialist literature. I thibnk you'll find that there is a heriarchy of sources when there is a contentious academic issues involved. Entire books or chapters written relatively recently might have superiority over books written in 1975 which mention something like "it appears that the Macedonians spoke a crude form of Greek..", no matter how voluminous. And, yes, I do think this is the final point of resolution. And I do appreciate that you have been relatively accomodative and good -willed. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ArbCom is for issues relating to user conduct, not content disputes, which is what we have here. Btw, I haven't said "no way", have I? Now, since all you are saying is that the Macedonians were "not unanimously, unambiguously seen as Greek", let's focus on that. While I agree that this is indeed the case for a period of the Macedonians' history (which again, coincides with a period of political hostility), I think that the current wording already reflects that through the qualifier "Generally regarded as...".  If the Macedonians were unanimously, unambiguously seen as Greek throughout their history, that qualifier would not be there.  The lack of unanimity is then elaborated upon in the Identity section (ad nauseam, if you ask me).  The lede is not meant to go into details, thus I think the current wording is sufficient and already a compromise.  I could be open to adding a second qualifier such as "Generally, though not unanimously", but that is as far as I am willing to go. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Btw, I don't know if you noticed, but many of the sources used to attest that the Macedonians were a Hellenic people are from the 21st century, not the 70s. On the other hand, I note that Badian dates to 1982. Athenean (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, after some thought, why don't we include the wording you want to add, while keeping the current wording as well? That would work for me. We could add it right after the second sentence. Deal? Athenean (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we could accomodate something. I'll propose something shortly. And sorry about the football Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They are generally described as an ancient Greek people in modern historical narratives, however they were often sometimes considered as "barbarians" for much of their pre-Roman history. Beginning as a semi-Hellenized culture on the Greek periphery, Macedonia became the dominant power in the Greek world during the fourth century BC" ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that this version gives the right picture, given the cited material, we should give the clear view on what modern bibliography concludes. Sporadic pre-Roman claims can be mentioned on the specific section they belong, they give a complicated view anyway. Morevoer, there is also a complete lack about the spread of Greek culture and language, as a result of Alexander's campaing which should be mentioned in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Clearly yu have not read the preceding discussion and just jumped in for the sake of adding 2 cents worth. Not only is there clear body of recent specialist scholars who maintain the view that macedonians were generally not seen as true Greeks until Roman times (and thos ancient claims were not sporadic byut rather consistent), but I have actually kept the They are generally described as an ancient Greek people part. This is more than reasonable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.76.1.244 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the subject very well and the wp:ninja attempt to adjust the lead, contrary to long established consensus is at least poorly explained. Thus please do not confuse modern conclusions with claims of pre-Roman times. Nevertheless, including the term 'barbarian' in lead, makes it far more complicated for the reader to understand and also doesn't provide the slightest usefull information on the character of ancient Macedonians, in modern terms. You don't believe that this is an ethnographic term, right? (i.e. barbarian=non-Greek)Alexikoua (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you think you understand, but it seems apparent you simply choos to ignore any recent, more nuanced work. Fact is - a significant part of modern conclusions uphold and re-iterate what the situation back then was; and analyse it and contextualize it. They do not negate it or castigate the ancient Greeks for somehow being incorrect in their oftentimes assessment of Macedonians as "barbarians". So this is not confusing anything. i was merely trying to be accomodating, but if you rather I be more black and white, then we can state that a reasonable body of scholars do not see that the macedonians were greeks, then; at least not until Roman times, which is an important clarifier to the sweeping statement as currently is. These sources come from relatively recent in depth analysis of the issue, in contrast to some other sources in footnote 1 whioch seem to have scrounged up virtually anything which makes a passing reference to Macedonia and Ancient Greece. i am getting bored of this BS, and will be taking the matter to administration. you are all clearly choosing to disregard to abundant references above. I have tried to be accomodatinng, the favour has not been returned Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Um, I think you are conflating Alexikoua with me, we are in fact two different users. Regarding the wording, I think I preferred your previous wording (not sure about that "semi-Hellenized" stuff).  I should also let you know that I notified HJ Mitchell that you violated your revert parole not once but twice (the 157 IP is you, isn't it?).  While I do not feel strongly about the content, I felt I should at least notify him.  So there is no need to take the matter to administration, I already have. Athenean (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfotunately SV you continue to misunderstand basic terms and claims on ancient Greek literature and insist to add them on lead without any proper explanation. The expression "Variously called "Greek" or "barbarian" by contemporary Greeks" is de facto wrong (the one term does not reject the other), for a 21th century encyclopedia. If you mean that ancient Macedonians were not as Hellenic as the rest, the fact is that every tribe and political entity in ancient Greece, had its own distinct identity inside the hellenic world. To call someone barbarian was a common expression used by pre-Roman, Greek, authors. For example the Eleans, founders of the classic Olympics were also called barbarians by some ancient Greeks [].Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's actually an interesting point, which needs to be addressed. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alexi's arguement is mentioned in the body, and Im aware of that. However, some modern scholars still interpret the barbarian accusations simply as "not Greek", rather than internal sloganeering amongst Greeks. Surely both views can be represented without undue complication and prolongation in the lede; and as I have stated I do not care on the particular order Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmmm, then what's the meaning by adding the 'barbarian' stuff on lead? You proposed a "Variously called "Greek" or "barbarian" by contemporary Greeks" addition, not by modern schollars.Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that is why, to keep it as simple as possible. The simple fact is - any scholar who has addressed the issue has highlighted that Macedonian ethnicity was not unambiguous, whether they conclude that the Macedonians were essentially Greek, were originally not so, or concluded that the question itself is non-sensical given the shifting semantics. As such, we should take heed from what other articles have done when there is editorial and professional ambiguity; eg the Cimbri -"a tribe from northern Europe", or the Veneti - "an ancient indo-European people".


 * Likewise here we can write "The AMs were a tribe on the northern edge of the Greek world. Although composed of various clans, the Kingdom of Macedon, established around the 8th century BC, is mostly associated with the Argeads, both the name of the ruling dynasty and of the tribe named after it. Traditionally ruled by independent families, the Macedonians seem to have accepted Argead rule by the time of King Alexander I (r. 498–454 BC). Under King Philip II (r. 359–336 BC), they are credited with numerous military innovations which led to the exploits of Alexander the Great, the establishment of several realms from the Diadochi, and the inauguration of Hellenistic civilization." Simple and fair Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the geographical location should be made clearer and the fact that they absorbed other peoples as they expanded be included as well. But I would also like to wait and hear what other users have to say before deciding. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, regarding the Cimbri, I did notice that linguistic/ethnic affiliation information is included in the lede. Bad example. Same for many other Germanic (e.g. Cheruscans), Celtic (Veneti (Gaul)), Illyrian, or Slavic tribes. In fact linguistic affiliation is included in the lede of almost every article about ancient tribes (even tribes of uncertain affiliation such as the Adriatic Veneti). Athenean (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it says "could be Germanic, or could be Celtic ..". (And there was never any doubt that the Veneti from Gaul were Celticl they are different to Vistula Veneti). Anyhow, if you want language included, we can; and also for further information about location. I, on the other hand, also think we should include their cultural -organization-political background (in a way which almost anyway incorporates the fact that they mixed with/ absorbed other groups)Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! After taking some time to read all this long discussion, I do not know if I want to thank Athenean for bringing me out of my inactivity or curse him (yes, Athenean invited me to participate in this discussion, and contribute my opinion and assessment). I say that because I feel happy when I contribute to something useful and quality-driving, but not when I feel like playing a game of words. Again, the whole discussion is not about how this article will get better, but whose approach will prevail in the lede. And, since in our occasion Slovenski Volk feels "defeated" in the long run and left alone against these damn numerous Greeks, he used this time the word "barbarian" as a vehicle for taking his "revenge"; and I say as a "vehicle", because obviously I do not think that he had any illusion that such an uncyclopedic and un-historical wording could be acceptable:
 * "Variously called "Greek" or "barbarian"" by contemporary Greeks, this distinction was soft (something like the soft law?), permeable and secondary to prevailing political and cultural factors?"

It's obvious that Slovenski wouldn't be so clumsy to propose something that in no serious encyclopedia could be acceptable. What does this sentence mean in scientific terms? It means that we have to rule out the secondary sources and the modern historians and merely reproduce in the lede what (some) ancient primary sources are saying, many of them unarguably driven by political or personal motives. But just in order to add some pretext of "science" let's refer at the end of the sentence to the "prevailing political and cultural factors". And what about the essence itself? About the cultural and "ethnological" (I know it is not the most suitable term to use for the ancient world) identity of the Macedonians and the related modern bibliography? Nothing about that! The un-scientific character of this approach is also proved by the luck of criteria used by the editor in question in order to "choose" the "opinion" which suited him better: Why should we choose these primary sources and not what the ancient Macedonians were believing about themselves? About the fact that they promoted and emphasized on everything Greek in their culture? About the fact that they even searched for a mythological proof of their Greek "identity"? About their language and their religion? About their constant effort to participate in the existing at the time collective Greek institutions? About the fact that they hated the term "barbarian"? Why Demosthenes and not the Macedonians?

This approach is so so wrong that, as I already said, I can't accept Slovenski honestly believed that something like that could be supported by anybody (except for [maybe] himself). I don't think that this can be the case for a man who prides himself as an historical researcher. No! His last "compromise (?!)" proposal reveals what is really going on here. Feeling that the discussion about modern scholarship does not lead him where he wants, Slovenski came back more resolute this time after his most recent block and determined to first guide away the discussion from the modern scholarship (who did him no good), and then bring it back to it but in the way he wants, which is equally uncyclopedic for the reasons I'll explain. In order to make Wikipedia the favor not to insist on the mighty primary sources (and their interpretation by him), he proposes a "simple and fair" lede, where the only relation of the Macedonians with the Greek world is merely ... geographical! Simple and fair ...

However, even he who gets allergic to any attempt to relate the Macedonians with the Greeks, even he writes that: "so even if Macedonians spoke some form of Greek and had a largely Hellenic culture, this does not automoatically mean they were "Greeks" or "Hellenes", and then "even if Macedonian was related to Greek, it does not mean it was "Greek", much less they were considered to be Greek." And having written that, he then tries to prove that even if the Macedonians were related to Greeks and even if they had a largely Hellenic culture, they were not Greeks! He tells us "Yes, ok, the Macedonians were related to Greeks, they had adopted their language, their religion, their culture, but, listen guys, we must not mention in the lede that they had any relations with the Greeks! Ok? If not ok, I am ready to make a compromise, a big one! Listen, we'll say that geographically they were located somewhere on the northern edge of the Greek world. Ok?"

Well, it is not ok! This whole argumentation is a joke; it a joke towards all of us who are reading this nonsense; it is a joke towards history; it a joke towards the encyclopedia; it is a joke towards any kind of generally acceptable scientific approach. Slovenski, it makes no good to try to hide or conceal the relation of the Macedonians with the ancient Greek world and its culture; after all, it is not such a bad thing to be part of one of the greatest civilizations of all time. As a matter of fact, I think that the ancient Macedonians regarded it as a great honor, something that you again try to conceal.Yannismarou (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yanismarou, it is your statement that is “wow’-worthy. It is nothing but a dribble of a self-important tirade of personal accusations, conspiracy theories and straw man arguments, hidden under a tapestry of an invited academic who can shed some light on the discussion. Your accusations are entirely misguided and unfair. Just because I have sought to make a minor modification to the lede you have come out all guns blazing as if I have mortally insulted you. It’s great that you’re patriotic but your behaviour is very low and only serves to highlight your incivility, not my “conspiracy” to cause the downfall of Hellenic history. As an orthodox person of Yugoslav ancestry, I can honestly say I have only admiration for your country. My stance on the minutia of this topic does not in any way change this. So please, get real, and get civilized


 * My suggestion was to suggest a more balanced, precise and detailed opening sentence or two. “What does this sentence mean in scientific terms?” you ask, well, if you are not well read enough to understand certain concepts, or simply do not have the faculties, that’s fine. But don’t write a whole page of BS about ‘unscientific” nature of my writing. For a start, this is humanities, not chemistry. Things are not black and white about human behaviour, symbolism and identity, and cannot be reduced to a simple game of numbers. Again, if such an idea is over your head, that is not my fault.
 * But I really do not care as to what you think of my approach. I haven’t concocted this out of thin air; I did not dream it up one night. It is there written in the literature plentifully.


 * To be honest, I cannot even follow the logic in what your trying to say, because, quite simply it is too primitive. But, I will give you my good faith that in no way was I suggesting that the only relation between Macedonians and Greeks was geographic - that is your misunderstanding. And keep in mind, I have written virtually most of the article - and have included all the pro-Hellenic side to things also, but you appear ignorant of this. I have always agreed that we include that the most parsimonious might be that Macedonians were Greeks; and I have never removed this. All I suggested was that we (maybe not you) have the abilities, research knowledge and duty to improve the exactness of the article. And as responded to Athenean that I agreed that we should mention their language, their culture and the fact that they were Champions of Hellenism, etc. But seriously, ease of the stimulants.


 * I'll leave you with "scientific" quote from Danforth. "Detailed studies of macedonian have revealed, as one might expect, that it exhibits both similarities and differences to ancient Greek culture..The Ancient Macedonian language and its relationship to Greek has been the subject of much debate" but "many linguists maintain that there is simply not enough evidence to determine exaclty what the Macedonian language was."


 * "Adopting an approach that is much more consistent with the comtenporary anthropological perspective of ethnicity as a social category determined by self-ascription and ascription by others..historians have asked how the ancient Macedonians were perceived in relation to the ancient Greeks.. When the question is posed in this way ,the answer seems much more clear cut: in their own time the ancient Maceonians were generally perceived by the Greeks and by themselves not to be Greek".. "It was only after the death of Alexander the GReat with the increasing Hellenization of Macedonian culture and the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that the Macedonians came to be regarded as "northern Greeks". This is precisely the period during which ancient authors, such as Polybius and Strabo, did refer to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks".


 * Again, clearly I have knit-picked, mis-contextualized and mis-represented the source, and whatever other tired accusations you care to present. Failing that, I suggest that you write to Prof Danforth, and give him a piece of our mind for such conspiracy that he created. How dare he. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Personal accusations? Conspiracy and "straw man" theories? Oh, come on! I expected something better from you; not these banalities. Slovenski, I simply described what you did and what your edits mean in encyclopedic terms. What did you expect me? To support this kind of edits that only sockpuppets approved and tried to maintain the last days?


 * You say that you are the one who edited most of the article. I did not check the article's history, but I can believe that: this article is such a mess that it could have been indeed written in most of its part by you. But let's leave aside this retorting you seem to like so much, and let's focus on the substance: You say you want a compromise. Ok, then let's try to find a compromise and let's try to make a lede which is representative of modern scholarship (including your favorite anthropologist, Professor Danforth, to whom I give my respects) and of the history itself. I thus make a proposal which I think that reflects both the modern approaches as well as the history as we know it and the self-perception of Macedonians:


 * "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were a tribe on the northern edge of the Greek world, whose they constituted a vital part from the 6th century BCE. They gradually expanded from their homeland (the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios), absorbing various neighbouring tribes during this process (primarily Thracian and Illyrian).


 * Although modern shcolars have expressed different approaches as regards the character and the exact extent of their relation with the other ancient Greek tribes over time, they agree that the AMs adopted at a certain point the Greek language, religion and the Greek culture, in general. The Macedonians themselves took pride in their Greek origins and they participated in the major ancient Greek associations and events, such as the Amphictyonic League, and the Olympics. Additionally, although composed of various clans, the royal family of Macedon and the kingdom, the latter established around the 8th century BC, were mostly associated with the Greek royal house of the Argeads, both the name of the ruling dynasty and of the tribe named after it.


 * Traditionally ruled by independent families, the Macedonians seem to have accepted Argead rule by the time of King Alexander I (r. 498–454 BC). Under King Philip II (r. 359–336 BC), who created the Hellenic League, they are credited with numerous military innovations. These led to the exploits of Alexander the Great, who was awarded the generalship of Greece against the Persians, to the establishment of several realms from the Diadochi, and finally to the inauguration of the Hellenistic age of the ancient Greek civilization. There is a consensus among modern scholars that the latest by the time of the Macedonian Wars, the other Greeks had definitely accepted the Macedonians as an integral part of their civilization."


 * What do you say? Of course, I cannot take pride in my English (definitely not as much as the Macedonians took pride in their Greek roots), but I am sure the necessary grammatical and syntactical corrections shall take place. I think it is comprehensive, balanced, simple and fair. It focuses on modern scholarship (including your favorite Danforth, with whom by the way I agree: I also do not see sometimes the Cretes, the Cypriots or the Macedonians as "brothers", but they are undeniably Greeks), and on historical facts (stated in the primary sources and analyzed in the secondary sources) about the history of ancient Macedonians and their self-preception. Are we ok?Yannismarou (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some parts of it are good, some blatant OR - we have no evidence to support that rank-and-file Macedoninas "took pride in their Greek origins". Even for the Argeads themselves one can argue "And though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed" [Peter Green, "Alexander the Great"), so we shouldn't include things which are invented or contentious. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It took you some time to finally form an opinion about my proposal, eh? What happened in the meantime? You had to discuss it with friends, who told you that, in the first place, you were not as cautious as you should be? However, as we say in Greece, better late than never ...--Yannismarou (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

But I suppose that this is the kind of lede you would like for this article and which would probably satisfy your standards:

"The Macedonians were a tribe located somewhere in Balkans [I am sure we can agree to a geograpical reference where no mentioning to Greece/Greeks etc. will be made], which gradually expanded from their homeland (the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios), absorbing various neighbouring tribes during this process (primarily Thracian and Illyrian).

Traditionally ruled by independent families, the Macedonians seem to have accepted Argead rule by the time of King Alexander I (r. 498–454 BC). Under King Philip II (r. 359–336 BC), they are credited with numerous military innovations. These led to the exploits of Alexander the Great, to the establishment of several realms from the Diadochi, and finally to the inauguration of the Hellenistic civilization (not to be confused with the unrelated Greek civilization)."

Am I wrong? I am sure you'd really love such a lede, eh? Even the sarcastic parenthesis! Now, if there is still any instance of even implicit reference or nuance to a possible relation between the Macedonians and the Greeks, please tell me to remove it as well.Yannismarou (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A final comment: I am sorry to say that but your quote from Green reveals a complete ignorance (even bigger than mine!) as regards ancient Greek history. What has to do Panhellenism with whether or not the Macedians, the Atheneans etc. felt Greeks or not or took pride in their Greek roots or not? The answer? None! Because there was no real sense of Panhellenism by any ancient Greek state, ruler or politician. They all used it for political reasons. Some couldn't even conceive it. So, the fact that Philip and Alexander concieved it and used it (even for political reasons) is a big step in the history of Greek civilization! They conceived and implemented in the Greek world what Pericles and Epaminondas could not. All the ancient Greeks felt that they belonged to a bigger cultural family; that there was a certain connection between them, and that they shared a common tradition, although the meanings of "panellenism" or "union of the Hellenes" was something completely strange to them. They took pride in the Greek roots, and regarded Panhellenism as a fig at the same time. If you cannot understand that, it is because of the completely different historical and cultural environment, within which you were born (and we were all born) and you currently live. Therefore, your comment and, mainly, your quote are completely irrelevant to what I write.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously, you need to sophisticate the way you talk here. What's with all Eh ? Eh? Eh ? Aha ! See ? ! Ah ! I took a while to reply because I have a job (I know times are tough where you're from)
 * You are again twisting what I am saying: I have never we need to remove all the "GreeK" from the lede, that' s just ridiculous. And again, stop with the OR, I do not give a fig for you're personal theories as to what Hellenism might have meant. If you're that confident, try an d publish an article (Good Luck) . Ill reply more shortly Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have two proposals based on the weight of evidence. And I took the liberty of bolding the word Greek for you, just so you don't have a meltdown (I care for your health, I do)


 * Option (1) (Changes in Italics) Leaving the issue of exact identity/ ethnicity out of the lede, but stating that
 * "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were a tribe from the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, in the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios. They gradually expanded from their homeland along the Haliacmon valley on the northern frontier of the Greek world...."


 * (2) Option 2: If one were to want commentery on their ethnicity, and again keeping same beginning and final parts, the middle to be:


 * "Studies of Macedonian culture and language postulate that it exhibits both similarities and differences to ancient Greek. Whilst the ancient Macedonians were not generally perceived by the Greeks as kin during the Classical and early Hellenistic period, they were so during Roman times. Although composed of various clans, the Kingdom of Macedon, established around the 8th century BC, is mostly associated with the Argeads..."    Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As of this writing, I am still leaning towards not removing the current second sentence ("Generally described..."), though I am open to some addition if the parties are so inclined. Not sure on the exact wording, need to think about it a little more. Athenean (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as I have stated earlier, that wording ("generally considered")sounds WEASALish and somewhat counter to what a sizable, even a majority of specialists currently conclude.
 * It is a fact that ancient sources, well into Roman times, and numerous modern scholars who have analysed them, treat the Macedonians and Greeks as different peoples, races, genos, etc. Sources always write "Macedonians and Greeks", not "Macedonians and other Greeks". On the other hand, when talking about Thessalians, Athenians, they refer to "Athenians/ Thessalians and other Greeks". Whatever we may hypothesize about the proximity of Macedonian language to Greek, the ancient sources speak loudly and clearly about the ethnic relationship between Macedonians and Greeks. The insistance to keep "Greek people" in the lede perhaps illustrates the deeply engrained nationalistic tendencies of certain editors here and the visceral responces evoke when anything different is suggested. How can you argue against such blank-and-white statements (made by Anglo-American scholars) that have persuasively argued that the Macedonians were generally perceived..not to be Greek. To state that the Macedonians were a vital part of the Greek world is perfectly true and appropriate, but to present that "they are generally considered a Greek people" in the lede (as current), at best misrepresents the current (NB 2012, not 1973) state of scholarly opinion; whilst at worst it approaches OR. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We're going around in circles. I'm not going to rehash the whole argument again.  I made a genuine effort to meet you halfway, but it seems even that is not good enough.  And now you have again violated your revert restriction, and laced your talkpage post with thinly-veiled insults.  I can't deal any more. Athenean (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Slovenski Volk is right in wanting to rewrite certain pieces of this article, which forces the reader to believe that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, by using meaningless expressions such as "they were part of the Greek world". He brought the sources to clearly say that today scholars have rejected 1970s work of Hammond that was built to support the Ancient Macedonians Greekness. I wonder why actually, you SV, are Ok with the statement "Greek world". "Greek world" is an expression that can be misleading and should be avoided. By the way, what's a revert restriction? SaintNicholas002 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I do not think any one can deny they were intimately involved and instrumental in the politics of the Greek orbit, had immense cultural influence from Greece, and even spoke a language closely related to Greek. But to speak of them as "Greek people" is not only anachronistic, but quite possibly frankly incorrect, no matter what anthropological interpretations one brings to the table, and whether one looks at modern or ancient sources. Athenean's idea of "meeting halfway" is resonces like "no way", "no deal" and the like. That's OK, the body of literature speaks for itself, and it is only growing
 * TO quote only 2 more of the ever -growing body of more nuanced and methodologically up-to-date literature, we have:
 * ALthough contemporary Greeks now insist that the Ancient Macedonians shared their ethnic roots, the anceint GReeks were less certain about this. in A careful study of the evidence, E BOrza demonstrates that ancient authors tended to distinguish between GReeks and Macedonians at the time of ALexander the GReat (even). "The Early Imperial History of Macedon, Edward Harris.
 * a coalition of states in what was called the "Hellenic war", modelled its council on the Greek League of 480, and consciously identified the Macedonians as the successors of the Persians. (ah, so Macedonians were "Greek heroes") "The Metamorphosis of the Barbarian. Peter Green.
 * So where are these "generally regarded" authors ? IN fact, they leded should state the Macedonians were generally not regarded as Greeks, but I never pushed for that, rather just a slightly more neutral lede. Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the sudden interest?
Although I am certainly not as well read or familiar with the academic side of the topic, I cannot help but wonder... Why all of a sudden a number of scholars and people have decided to rewrite history? Given that no major discoveries have been made in the recent past, or ground-breaking new techniques applied and data unearthed to subsequently evolve into definite results in contrast to what we have known for the last couple thousand years or so, many are poised to cast doubts, introduce controversies and so on. The story of ancient Macedonians, their culture, religion and language, their way of life and in essence, their existence is quite well documented and until recently, almost everyone agreed that it was Hellenic. Suddenly, there are claims from academics and others that they have found the exact opposite, and we should consider them. I ask, what changed? Scarce new data, just a different point of view. Well, history is not something that changes along with one's perspective. History is about the past, not the present. Historical facts do not evolve, like modern science does. Perspective changes with the times and politics, the past doesn't. Especially controversial is the fact that articles about Macedonia attract such a large number of revisionists, which is certainly not irrelevant.

I think that consensus is one thing, but bargaining is another. I saw above the attempt to negotiate the changes in the article. I fear it is not the first nor the last time it happens. Is this the level of information we want Wikipedia to offer? The product of haggling? And the next time a revisionist scholar writes a book? How about the time after that? Next time someone else will object as to what ancient Macedonians were and felt, and the article will change once again... This is a game... None of us lived back then and to try and interpret thousand year old evidence with regard to what they felt and how others collectively viewed them is at least absurd. A scholar may or may not support a view because of many reasons, however to reinvent history is by no means a scholarly act. We should not go down this slippery road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.141.70 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The interest about ancient Macedonians is due to political reasons. I really hate when Politicians are trying to mess with history. Nationalist parties (see VMRO-DPMNE for example) are seeking to have a political gain (mostly) and the nationalism is proven to be a pretty popular way to gain votes and support from the masses. I really hate the politicians who are doing all this mess for personal gains... "Leave history to the historians!" could be my message to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.143.155 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not a Forum for the discussion of the subject, but are to be used to discuss how Reliable Sources can help improve the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
This article appears to be a copy of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which also contains the word ancient or refers to their "empire". Cosprings (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)